About your Search

20121112
20121120
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
directly at odds with house speaker john boehner. >> could you accept a deal that does not include tax rate increases for the wealthy? we've seen talk about a possible compromise that could leave rates the same but cap deductions for high-income earners. is that something that's acceptable? >> no. >> not at all no, way? >> no. the preponderance made it very clear in his campaign that there are not enough -- what you just described is a formula and a blueprint for hampering our future. you cannot go forward -- you have to cut some investments. if you cut too many you are hampering growth, you're hampering education, investments for the future. >> and even thousands of miles away it appears president obama is still focused on those negotiations. while touring a royal monastery with secretary of state clinton in thailand the president was overheard mentioning the budget talks to a monk. the president later clarified his comments -- >> he's not any monk. >> no. >> he has some big i vestments in the stock market. >> he later clarified his comments at a news conference. >> yes, we were working on
back and forth. you had boehner's position from the -- >> i don't want to anger the viewers, you but i think they're looking at obama's words the same way they look it at the polls with the kind of sense of here's what i want to believe. >> if they lose, do they go along with that and say we will accept that or do they push it over the fiscal cliff. you have people on the right and the left who are saying go over. >> in the press conference yesterday, my read of what obama said was we're raising the rates and we're put a structure for eliminating entitlements. >> correct. but if we're talking about rates, if you were playing joe, you would hear that the argument would be that this will never actually work. republicans won't go loochialon it. so some people were suggesting maybe there is a way to do 35% and get rid of deductions. >> but remember was it geithner on -- today is thursday. so this would have been tuesday. he said people are diluting themselves to think we can get where we need to get with loopholes. and i don't know about the right max, but my understanding is i don't think
.6 trillion of new revenue. boehner had agreed to $800 billion. it's not hard to find $1.2 trillion as a kind of middle ground to that. then you want to have $4 trillion of total deficit reduction, so that leaves $2.8 trillion of spending reductions that have to happen. here's what people miss. we can avoid going over the cliff with the stroke of a pen. they can just extend all this stuff and kick the can down the road. the real question is are we going to have a big deal? are we going to agree on the major spending restraints that we need as well as the tax stuff in order to actually get the deficit under control? and i think the betting on that is less than 50%. i think we have a great shot at it. but it's going to be really, really hard. >> is that the view from wall street, too? they're not totally confident that this is going to happen? >> what you see in the stock market at the moment is that wall street is not totally confident. that's for sure. >> all right. steve, thanks so much. >> pleasure. >>> coming up, independent senator-elect of maine, angus king joins the conversation. he's a
can tell you that the guys in the house and boehner, they really want to do this, this limiting deductions, limiting loopholes, raising effective rates, but lowering nominal rates. they want to do it that way but the president may say no and those guys in the house will say no and we might, it might happen. >> it might, but look, this is a leadership moment. we have a a leader who now has second term. he's a president. he's a fascinating individual in many respects. he's part of the problem. >> what gives you any indication he'll lead in this case? >> maybe he'll wake up to the fact that he has a chance to cut through the polarization and leave a winning legacy. this is his chance to rise above. give him a button. >> there you go. thank you for that, steve. we have more ahead from steve. coming up, we're going to talk about several stocks on the move ahead of the opening bell. we'll get down to "mad money's" jim cramer. "squawk on the street," jim cramer right after this. sometimes investing opportunities are hard to spot. you have to dig a little. fidelity's etf market tracker
.6 would be 1.5 to 1, when he was with boehner, 800, wanted another 4. >> you were in the room so you know. >> first of all, since we talk about bowles-simpson so much, bowles-simpson has a 1:1 ratio. >> it doesn't. >> i thought it's 1:4. >> it's 1:3. >> in the way the bowles-simpson frame was put out something people didn't realize was that in terms of the revenue number they weren't counting the expiration of the high income tax cuts which they proposed to get rid of. apples to apples, in terms of the way people are currently adding up their math, it's approximately a 1:1 ratio. >> erskine bowles said you should look at 3:1 in terms of spending cuts to revenue. >> i'm just saying what was in bowles-simpson. >> let's not forget about growth, we need to stimulate growth and a lot of it on the innovation side. >> david thank you, appreciate it i put away money. i was 21, so i said, "hmm, i want to retire at 55." and before you know it, i'm 58 years old. time went by very fast. it goes by too, too fast. ♪ but i would do it again in a heartbeat. [ laughs ] ♪ ♪ . >>> welcome back, everyb
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)